jet's interesting finds

78 readers

1 users here now

my journal

founded 11 months ago

MODERATORS

jet@hackertalks.com

totallynotjet@lemm.ee

jetlag@dubvee.org

The radicalization pipeline isn't a conspiracy, its emergent behavior of "engagement" algorithms (youtu.be)

submitted 1 week ago by jet@hackertalks.com to c/interesting@hackertalks.com

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

TLDW: The scientific method is the antithetical to online engagement. Algorithms push emotional messages and content, which isn't dispassionate and trying to be objective.

If engagement is key, then the most engaging content gets screen time, and more people are pushed with engaging polarizing content rather then informed intelligent discourse.

We see this on youtube, twitter, all algorithm driven media.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I'm not talking about neighbours who claim. I'm talking friends, family and neighbours who you actually know.

I'm sorry, is there a difference? Does you or me knowing them give them some sort of extra expertise or knowledge on a subject?

No, of course it doesn't.

I've corrected plenty of friends and family and even acquaintances on blatantly false shit they "know" from their isolated silos and bubbles IRL, whereas I - "terminally online" (aka Informed) always seem to actually know better, but even more importantly I can actually quickly find exactly the source I am using for that information I'm giving to them and show why it's a decent source, or even enhance my understanding if I misremembered any detail.

Its more than a claim because you know were they work and various elements of their past.

Which does what? How does this help them be a reliable source of information in the slightest?

You must critically analyze information regardless of source, and learn to mentally cancel the bias towards those you know. Information (and context) must be evaluated on its own in a vacuum (though again, with context, to determine intent), but things such as the pure validity of factual statements don't actually become substantially different based on who is speaking (though the intent may change).

As for the jesus thing I do know what historians use but there are two groups about the historacity of jesus. One feels there are multiple independent sources for the existence of christ based on historians using unsited independent sources they had. One feels multiple sources used each others accounts along with christian accounts until you go back to josephus who only was talking to christians. So my use of bad logic was the assumption sources are independent when their sources are not given.

Yeah, but again, why are the sources like that? Dig deeper, the answers you want are there, they just might not be satisfying.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 0 points 5 days ago

look. I am in no way saying someone should not critically analyze something regardless of source. There are however. many, many, many. folks that do not. To me you are saying trust wikipedai without critical analyses. What I am saying is that of the folks who don't critically analyze and just go with what folks tell them and what they read. well they used to at least look at the source and they would trust doctors more on medical things and teachers more on academic things and lawyers more on legal things. especially if they knew them a bit and had free access to them. it would be better if they took an elementary logic class and learned how to do research (this was why I talked about the card catalogue, if you cannot do it with the outdated methods you are likely not really going to be able to do it with modern conveniences). fact is that most are not going to do that though and if they are not then they are better off listening to people who have spent time learning about a particular subject or whos schooling or background would make it likely they are more knowledgable around it.